IAFOR Journal of Ethics, Religion & Philosophy Volume 3 – Issue 1 – Spring 2017 Fertility and Untranslatability in Flannery O’Connor’s “Greenleaf” Peng Yao Department of English, Chinese University of Hong Kong Abstract This paper attempts to explore the female melancholic subject’s failed memorization and mourning in relation to the dead person in Flannery O’Connor’s story “Greenleaf.” Jean Laplanche considers mourning to be the subject’s translations, de-translations, and retranslations of the other person’s unconscious message, which is deposited in the subject’s mind like a foreign body; mourning, then, largely involves the subject’s repeated memorizations of the dead person. With reference to Laplanche’s theory, this study investigates the paradoxical desire of O’Connor’s melancholic mourner, Mrs. May, for unweaving the memories of the dead husband, and her unwillingness to entangle the past for fear of disclosing the less than desirable aspect of the dead. While the melancholic subject vainly wallows in unsuccessful translations of her unstable memories of the dead husband, which have already become fused with her own biographical history, she forms strong defensive mechanisms against a variety of invading agents, such as her hired help and a scrub bull, that are likely to reactivate her full memorization. In this sense, fertility is a symbol of Mrs. May’s unwanted yet uncontrollably proliferating memories of the dead husband. Moreover, the irretrievability of any “authentic” memories regarding the lost person determines the perpetuated untranslatability of the foreign body in O’Connor’s melancholic mourner. Keywords: Flannery O’Connor, untranslatability, “Greenleaf,” mourning, foreign body 36 IAFOR Journal of Ethics, Religion & Philosophy Volume 3 – Issue 1 – Spring 2017 Flannery O’Connor is skillful at simultaneously seducing and persecuting her characters with a foreign body and a covertly expected invader. Along with the foreign body and invader comes the hint of a revelation, which is nonetheless never quite illuminated. Visible illness, disability, stranger, doubling figure, and even intrusive animals are all capable of assuming the role of foreign body or uncanny invader. Freud writes, “We presume that the psychical trauma- or more precisely the memory of the trauma- acts like a foreign body which long after its entry must be continued to be regarded as an agent that is still at work” (SE II, 1893, p. 6). In Freud’s succeeding work, the foreign body serves as memories of a traumatic episode of loss in one’s life. If the foreign body cannot be scrutinized from within, it will return in the form of an uncanny external force. As illustrated by Freudian aesthetic of mourning, a dead object which is never really dead brings out the full dynamic of the subject’s emotional turmoil. Despite its apparent invisibility, the foreign body permeates O’Connor’s widowed women’s surrealist dramas. Having a life of its own, it can moreover be highlighted by all kinds of mysterious invading agents. Indeed, O’Connor’s protagonists have an intimate kinship with the invader: they peep at, listen to, or wait for some forms of revelation from it so as to confront their foreign body. This uncanny confrontation prompts them to embark on an unconscious quest through grappling with past memories, wants and grief. For a host of characters who are unaware of their traumatic psychic reality such as Ruby of “A Stroke of Good Fortune,” Mrs. McIntyre of “The Displaced Person,” and Mrs. Turpin of “Revelation,” encountering the other triggers an attempt at memorization and mourning. Yet there is almost always a dimension of absolute unknowability and animosity to the foreign body awaiting to be resurrected by the invading agent. Like Kafka’s characters who are haunted by the feeling that they have already been abandoned by the law and seek an answer in vain, O’Connor’s anxious characters covertly search for memories they unconsciously know are irredeemable, and mourn a person toward whom they hold an ambivalent attitude. Exploring the protagonist’s failed memorization and mourning in relation to the invading other, this short study attempts to investigate the enigmatic message of the dead in the mourner’s unconscious memories and its untranslatability in O’Connor’s short story “Greenleaf.” The unconscious memories of the dead in O’Connor’s work corresponds to the other-centered metapsychology formulated by psychoanalytic theorist Jean Laplanche. The foreign body or the enigmatic signifier is for Laplanche the traumatic product of the transmission of the other person’s unconscious wishes into the unconscious of the vulnerable subject; after the subject’s initial failure of translation, it is subject to repression and becomes the residual deposit that will be reactivated at a later stage in the unconscious. Laplanche even attributes the untranslatable message from the other to the genesis of the unconscious: “far from being my kernel, (the unconscious) is the other implanted in me, the metabolized product of the other in me: forever an ‘internal foreign body’” (1998, p. 256). The otherness of the unconscious therefore dictates that it exerts the power of seduction, persecution and revelation. Maintaining that “the human being is…a self-translating and self-theorizing being” (Laplanche, 1989, p. 131), Laplanche places emphasis on human beings’ continual translations of the other’s message, its belated realization, and proneness to revision. Laplanche’s explication of the unconscious may be too radical to be realistic; however, if we substitute the unconscious with unconscious memories, this theory is of considerable usefulness to the exploration of the instability of one’s traumatic memories regarding a lost person. Laplanche also relies on the theoretical model of translation, detranslation and retranslation for his elaboration on mourning. Alluding to the story of Penelope in The Odyssey, who weaves the cloth in daytime and unweaves it at night so as to block her suitors’ advance while Ulysses is rumored to be dead, Laplanche notes that the same word can denote “analyzing,” 37 IAFOR Journal of Ethics, Religion & Philosophy Volume 3 – Issue 1 – Spring 2017 “unweaving” and “undoing” in the Greek text. He argues that since Penelope unties her finished work in order to weave a new fabric, her mourning resembles psychoanalysis. Both dissolve old materials to create new knots and novel translations; and analysis is especially “a movement toward the past, a going back over…along the thread of the unconscious of the other” (1998, pp. 251–258). Laplanche remarks that “for the person in mourning, the message has never been adequately understood, never listened to enough. Mourning is hardly without the question: what would he be saying now” (Ibid., p. 254). But Laplanche’s approach neglects the fact that inquiry into the other’s message is inseparable from memorization: only through filling in the gaps of the enigmatic message with her memorization of the lost object, and thus establishing a dependable referent, can the subject reestablish her subjectivity impaired by trauma. Penelope’s work of weaving and unweaving precisely recalls the difficult memorization in mourning. Despite her daytime ritual, she resumes her imaginary dialogue with the supposedly dead at night by annulling the previous healing effort and reopening the wound, thereby perpetuating the disturbing undecidability of the other’s message as well as the self. With Ulysses the crafty object of loss and memorization transforming from seducer, persecutor to enlightener who finally reveals his identity, the melancholic Penelope is trapped in ceaseless attempts at memorization and translations. One of the most important persons of loss in O’Connor dates back to the husband. The dead patriarch is a paradoxical figure whose powerful presence is more strongly felt by his re- creation in the wife’s reminiscence, his genetic influence on the children, and the intimidating landscape permeated with supernatural imagery. Although the husband is oftentimes already dead before the family crisis unfolds, his omnipresent shadows show the persisting impact of traumatic memories, just as the return of the repressed exerts mental control over his wife. Absence therefore provides a more compelling presence infinitely strengthened by the permeability of the living person’s affective mapping. Even though the husband may be unappealing and morally dubious, he inspires a mixture of attachment and resentment, for he represents the lost power once capable of sustaining traditional social order. Ideally, the mourning wife could empower herself by identifying with his delusional potency. Her anxious helplessness is thus perpetuated through continuing to be hypnotized by fragmented memories, and imaginary communication with the ghost as well as the the agent of the deceased. Unconscious yearning for memorization and mourning is an important character trait in O’Connor’s widowed women characters. Yet, since the completion of mourning requires full reconciliation with past memories and reconstruction of one’s autobiographical self, these women hardly accomplishes their goal. Mrs. May in “Greenleaf” is an illustrative example. As the narrator informs us, Mrs. May never quite escapes the shadow of geographical dislocation caused by the early demise of her husband, whose financial situation forces her to relocate from the city to the country, a plot evoking the role of Ulysses for Penelope. As a caricaturized version of Penelope, Mrs. May cannot terminate her work on the fabric of excessive unconscious memory fragments of her late husband. But different from Penelope, she refrains from naming her husband, though the “other” is of vital importance to her mental equilibrium. Laplanche argues that the mourner keeps asking herself what the dead person has to say or wants to do with her. Indeed, such a question is uttered repeatedly in various disguises of aggressive, radical, and otherwise inexplicable actions by Mrs. May to an absent addressee who has supposedly left his message and bears the power of paternal law like Ulysses.